Sovereign Immunity | 11th Amendment

In City of Hopewell v. Shree Arihant Motel, Inc., No. 251193 (Va. July 16, 2026), the Virginia Supreme Court held that a municipality which demolished an abandoned shopping center by burning it down is immune from the owner’s tort and statutory claims, though the city allegedly failed to comply with the procedures governing blight abatement. The owner’s inverse condemnation claim survived, however, because sovereign immunity does not bar a claim under the self-executing takings provision of the Virginia Constitution.
Continue Reading Virginia: Takings Claim Survives After City Burns Down Blighted Shopping Center, But Sovereign Immunity Wipes Out Everything Else

Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been on for a long time: whether government actions taken under the police power are categorically exempt from providing just compensation when those activities take or damage private property. In Blue 42 Organics, LLC v. Georgia Dep’t of Public Safety, No. S25G1493 (Sep. 9, 2026), the Georgia Supreme Court held no, and that the State was not categorically immune from an inverse condemnation claim just because the government damaged the property in the course of an apparently valid exercise of the police power.
Continue Reading Georgia: Invoking “Police Power” Doesn’t Automatically Evade Just Compensation When Govt Damages Private Property

The majority opinion of the Texas Supreme Court in State of Texas v. JRJ Pusok Holdings, LLC, No. 24-0447 (June 12, 2026), starts off pretty good: “The right to own property is ‘fundamental, natural, inherent, inalienable, not derived from the legislature and . . . preexist[s] even constitutions.'” And it gets better from there. At issue was one of those “buyback” statutes — property taken for a public use that isn’t used for that public use within a defined time frame can be repurchased by its former owner. In this case, Texas’s (as the caption indicates).
Continue Reading Texas: Agreeing To Settle A Just Compensation Claim Can Trigger Repurchase Right If Govt Doesn’t Use Property For Stated Purpose

Check this out, a new cert petition filed yesterday.

As the title of this post notes, this is one of ours. So we won’t be making substantial commentary on it.

But we can say that a sharply-divided Arkansas Supreme Court held that BAS’s Tyler takings claim for the State Lands Commissioner’s failure to return…

If you were creating a moot court problem, what topic would you pick? You’d want a question that is a hot topic. Unresolved by the Supreme Court. Controversial, interesting, and complex.

Well, we have just the issue for you: our favorite topic, takings.

That appears to be what the powers-that-be behind Harvard Law School’s moot…

Florida, like a lot of other jurisdictions, has an unclaimed property program whereby if an owner is deemed to have abandoned property (remember that old bank account you had in college years ago with a $2.50 balance?), the holder of that property may transfer it to the State, which keeps it until you come get…

2025 San Diego

Get ready to join your colleagues and friends in San Diego for the 42d ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference.

The 41st Conference was in New Orleans. Here’s a report of that event, and here are our reports from prior conferences in Austin and Scottsdale.

Here are some of the…

Check this out, a recently-filed cert petition asking whether, in order to sue for compensation for a taking, the government must first affirmatively provide a cause of action (an issue recently left unanswered by the U.S. Supreme Court). That’s an issue we’ve been following closely (our outfit recently filed this cert petition also). 

This …

Because the latest takings cert petition is one of ours (our colleagues Dave Breemer and Deb La Fetra are counsel for the petitioner), we won’t be commenting all that much on it.

Except to say that this is the latest in a series of cases where the obligation to provide just compensation for takings butts…

A short one (per curiam is one two-sentence paragraph), with an interesting concurring opinions from the Florida District Court of Appeals (4th District).

In Vazquez v. City of Hallandale Beach, No. 4D2023-0833 (June 12, 2024), the court held that a restrictive covenant that ran with Vazquez’ land (and others in his subdivision, including the…